Conclusions and Reflection

When undertaking this project I hypothesized that YouTube posters would employ gender stereotypes when speaking about Sarah Palin in regards to videos posted about her. I hypothesized that YouTube posters would dedicate significant attention to Sarah Palin’s looks, wardrobe, and physical appearance when either critiquing or praising her. I hypothesized that YouTube posters would portray Sarah Palin more often in “hypersexualized” terms, as a “sex object,” “mother,” and “pet or child,” than as an “iron maiden.” By exploring this topic of how gender stereotypes are employed by commentors on YouTube, I provided evidence to support my hypothesis. However, I did not anticipate that the significant majority of posters would describe her in “hypersexualized” terms; I anticipated that there would be a larger percentage of “iron maiden” comments. This study reveals that female politicians are viewed with an objectifying gaze, with particular attention focused on their physical appearance, sexuality, and manner of dress. In revealing the pervasiveness of “hypersexualized” comments as well as “iron maiden” comments to a lesser degree on YouTube, my study contributes to the study of the objectifying gaze of women in politics.

In my annotated bibliography, scholars Caroline Heldman and Lisa Wade cited feminist media critic Jean Kilbourne who argued in 2010 that the female objectification of women “‘[has] actually gotten much worse…[objectifying images are] more powerful than ever before, much more intrusive than ever before, it’s everywhere…” (Heldman and Wade 5). Heldman and Wade claim that Palin has received the most sexual objectification in the media in the history of politics. They write, “…it is safe to say that she has received the most sexually objectifying coverage to date. Fourteen percent of Palin’s coverage mentioned her appearance, and it was often intensely misogynistic: ‘looks like every librarian in a Cinemax movie;’ a ‘VPILF’” (Heldman and Wade 7). My study of archival data on YouTube supports these findings, which reveal that Palin is the subject of extensive “hypersexualized” comments. However, scholar Dianne Bystrom argues, “While some stereotyping does exist, the playing field for female candidates is becoming more equal” (Bystrom 5). My study calls into question Bystrom’s claim because I found that stereotyping Palin based on her physical appearance detracted from focus to her stance on political issues and her experience; commentors fixated on her physical appearance at the expense of devoting attention to analyzing her political competence. Furthermore, several commentors questioned her ability to run for Vice President based on the fact that she was a mother of five children, including a child with Down Syndrome (Carlin et al. 333). However, on a positive note, scholar Jane M. Siegel argues that stereotyping of Sarah Palin, along with other female politicians, may be a “good sign” because “some studies suggest that people resort to stereotypes more often when a subordinate group threatens the dominant groups. Because there are more women than ever before in workplaces that are not home, we’re paying more attention to how they look” (Siegel 179). Therefore, one may consider the “hypersexualization” and “iron maiden” portrayals of Palin by YouTube posters as a case where women challenging the status quo of male dominance in politics threaten commentors. However, Scholar Siegel asserts that placing female politicians in “boxes,” the box of “femininity” and the box of “masculinity” are incredibly problematic (Siegel 156).

In conducting this research, I examined the role of the objectifying gaze of female politicians in the media. I reflected often on the question of the “double bind” posed by scholar Ann McGinley in my annotated bibliography. McGinley seeks to show the “double bind” that female politicians face: “if they are too feminine, they are deemed incompetent. If they are too masculine, they are considered unlikeable” (McGinley 710). I was forced to ask myself: How can female politicians address this “double bind” when trying to convey their competence for political office?  Why is the media and society fixated on women’s physical appearances, especially when they are running for political office, which is based on intellectual competence and leadership skills, not physical attractiveness? How can we limit this objectifying gaze of female politicians so that as a society we can focus on the political issues at hand? Scholar Jane M. Siegel provides the most satisfying answer to my question. She argues that society must “stress substance, not style” of female politicians (Siegel 177). She states, “Refuse to engage in talk about her clothes, or her makeup, or her hair. When someone comments on Michelle Obama’s latest outfit, move the discussion to what she is doing rather than wearing” (Siegel 177). Altering how society speaks about female politicians has the potential to limit the objectifying gaze of female politicians in the media. Therefore, after conducting this research, I am more aware of the objectifying gaze of female politicians in the media via “hypersexualization” and “iron maiden” comments of Sarah Palin. Also, as stated by scholar Siegel, I am conscious that society must focus more on “substance [than] style” (Siegel 177).